Sunday, 31 January 2010

The views I express here on this blog about mass immigration and its effects on Canadian society are not unique to myself nor to the nation. Take thisNew York Times piece on South Korea.

For most South Koreans, globalization has largely meant increasing exports or going abroad to study. But now that it is also bringing an influx of foreigners into a society where 42 percent of respondents in a 2008 survey said they had never once spoken with a foreigner, South Koreans are learning to adjust — often uncomfortably.

South Korea enjoys considerable regional economic prosperity and it is an advanced industrial state. This makes it a magnet for those seeking "a better life". So South Korea has become an immigrant receiving nation in the past several years much to the chagrin of a segment of the host society.

But a recent forum to discuss proposed legislation against racial discrimination turned into a shouting match when several critics who had networked through the Internet showed up. They charged that such a law would only encourage even more migrant workers to come to South Korea, pushing native workers out of jobs and creating crime-infested slums. They also said it was too difficult to define what was racially or culturally offensive.

“Our ethnic homogeneity is a blessing,” said one of the critics, Lee Sung-bok, a bricklayer who said his job was threatened by migrant workers. “If they keep flooding in, who can guarantee our country won’t be torn apart by ethnic war as in Sri Lanka?”

It is an open secret that there is no desire amongst Asian nations to "diversify" their populations culturally or racially or otherwise. They justify this by looking at other nations like Sri Lanka, the United States, or the U.K., as examples of the disharmony "diversity" creates and the problems (what we refer to as challenges) foreigners bring to a host society. It should also be noted that "diversity" has not been integral to building the advanced industrial economies of Japan or South Korea and now China as well.

A disproportionate number of South Asian immigrants to Canada come from the Indian state of Punjab. The is the home territory of the Sikh religion. In Canada Sikhs are prone to lecture Canadians on the benefits of immigration and cultural diversity which is what makes this next story interesting. It seems what is good for Canada is not necessarily good for Punjab, at least according to the Sikh separatist group Dal Khalsa.

Describing migrants as 'population bomb', hundreds of Dal Khalsa activists displaying placards and banners marched in the interior of the city of Hoshairpur and Jalandhar to convey that the (population) bomb was ticking and that their uncontrolled influx and permanent settlement is 'unwelcome' and unacceptable' in the state.

Calling unfettered migration a "menace", the hypocritical mouthpieces of Dal Khalsa claim migrants "pollute" Sikh culture (so Sikhs in Canada "enrich" Canadian society, not pollute it?). One can only imagine the reaction of Dal Khalsa if the same terminology was used to describe an influx of Sikh migrants into a host society.

Lastly, South Africa has seen its share of race riots and if you think black vs. white then think again. Try black vs. black only in this case it's against other African immigrants who have moved to South Africa in search of a "better life". The problem is that for many black South Africans the "better life" still eludes them and a constant influx of immigrants from other parts of Africa does not make their life any easier.

There are couple of issues that unite these stories. The first is the self preservation of a host society/culture in the age of globalization. Mass immigration has the potential to alter the demographic make up of a society in all sorts of ways. That being the case does a host society have the right to protect itself and enact laws that will preserve the character of the host culture even if these laws may be construed as "racist" or xenophobic? I believe it does.

Each country has the potential to offer its uniqueness to the world. Multiculturalism is the inevitable consequence of mass immigration. Multiculturalism is also a non-identity, a fake identity if you will. The more multicultural a nation becomes the less unique it is and ironically the less multicultural the world becomes. I believe each country should control is immigration intake and be as discriminate as it needs to be to make sure immigrants complement the host society and help preserve it, not replace it.

The second issue is that immigration is a plaything of the elites no matter what country it is. They are typically sheltered from its negative economic effects, taking from it what they can to accentuate their banal existence; to go ethnic and show how cosmopolitan they are; to show how morally superior they are to the rabble. That is if they are not profiting from mass immigration outright. In short, they get all the benefits, everyone else pays the costs. Were their jobs and their lifestyles threatened I can guarantee they will be singing a different tune.

Sunday, 24 January 2010

I have to give credit to Jason Kenney for standing his ground (though I am disappointed he stubbornly refuses to reduce Canada's immigration targets). He is being pressured by the usual interest groups to relax Canada's immigration standards to provided permanent residency to Haitians as a means to escape their nation's natural disaster.

My problem with this is thus: Why should we give permanent residency, Canadian citizenship, to help people flee what is a temporary circumstance.

Canada has already agreed to expedite the adoption process for Haitian orphans and it has fast tracked those already in the family reunification queue. This is enough. Expanding the definitions of who qualifies for family reunification will effectively open the nation's doors to accept more people from Haiti and this is not a wise move.

Canada's immigration system is already in disarray due mostly to the unacceptable volume of immigrants Canada foolishly allows to settle in the country each year. Compounding this problem is that the majority of them come here with little to no pertinent job skills or language skills and those who do have a hard time finding employment if their fields of expertise. This tells us a lot about Canada's real need for these people and its ability to effectively absorb them. Haitians will not fair much better.

The disaster that struck Haiti is temporary. Reconstruction efforts are underway. Aid and funds are being collected to alleviate the suffering and many a celebrity, quasi-celebrity, and their parasite hanger-ons in entertainment "journalism" are already exploiting the situation to bring positive attention to themselves and their careers. Haiti is getting help but depopulating Haiti is no solution to its long lasting problems.

Haiti is the poorest nation in the western hemisphere. It most likely will continue to be so once this crisis passes. Bringing Haiti's poor to Canada's shores will not make Haiti a wealthier nation. It just brings the poverty here with the attendant negative consequences.

Haiti's needs are great. It needs political stability and a healthy economy. Haitians need education and skills training and giving Canadian citizenship to select Haitians does not benefit Haiti as a whole.

What I am bothered by are certain groups within Canada who are exploiting the disaster in Haiti to satisfy their own agendas. This extends even to Canada's Haitian community who see this as an opportunity to swell their ranks within the country with an influx of Haitian immigrants. The most disgusting are the self serving newspaper editorials extolling Jason Kenney to import potential Haitian newspaper readers into to the country. Hiding behind the language of compassion they are not fooling the savvy.

The one I have in mind is this Toronto Star editorial. Since the Toronto Star is a profit maximizing entity, part of TorStar corporation, I will put my objection in terms it can understand.

Torstar is a publicly traded company listed on the TSX. It has shareholders seeking to make gains on their investment in the company. This means that officers in the corporation are under pressure to raise the value of the stock and increase dividends. Will Torstar shareholders approve a move by the company, through its mouthpiece the Toronto Star, to import and support Haitian immigrants even though projections say that they will be a drain on company coffers and any financial benefits the program will have is eaten up by the program itself? I think we can accurately see how they will react and which direction Torstar stock value will move. Why should they hypocritically expect Canada to behave differently?

The costs to immigration are socialized meaning it is the public who pays for it, not corporate entities like Torstar who enjoy a myriad of tax loopholes and breaks to make sure they don't. They also benefit from the abundance of cheap labour and in the case of the media an increase of audience numbers to sell to advertisers. With that said I find the compassion expressed by the Toronto Star editorial board to be insincere and self serving with more of an eye on their jobs and profits than with the real needs of Haitians.

Wednesday, 13 January 2010

I was going to hold off commenting on this story until Ottawa decided to slap Hungarians with visa restrictions to curb the surge of asylum claims from Hungary but it doesn't matter whether Ottawa does or not. The fact that Ottawa is considering this course of action is enough fodder to write about.

Hungary has jumped to the top of the list of source countries producing refugees to Canada and this has Ottawa concerned, as it should. Hungary is an EU member country and anyone claiming asylum from Hungary should immediately raise red flags.

We've seen this recently before with Mexico and Czech Republic. However in the case of Czech Republic the people of that nation didn't deserve it and neither do the people of Hungary. The cause for visa restrictions for both countries is the same: Roma are targeting Canada's refugee system for immigration purposes and they are the reason for the surge in asylum claims for both countries.

So, instead of facing the fact that Canada's refugee system invites and rewards abuse we choose instead to redirect blame by insulting our fellow NATO members with visa restrictions. Politically it's the better option. I'm sure you can imagine that any move to reform Canada's immigration and refugee systems for the better will be met with accusations of racism by the parties in opposition and lost votes from ethnic voting blocks. It's apparent Canada is willing to sacrifice good diplomatic relations with allied nations to protect a highly politicized, costly, and socially dangerous immigration and refugee system for the sake of ethnic swing votes in urban ridings.

The solution is simple. Stop considering any asylum claim from anyone who arrived in Canada via a safe country. This would necessitate a challenge to the nefarious Singh decision of 1985 but this should have happened at the get go. Because of it Canada is required by law to entertain an asylum claim from anyone arriving from anywhere, even countries like the U.K., the U.S., Australia or the EU. It's irrational and it consumes a lot of tax dollars to maintain, public money that should have been spent on more important projects like infrastructure, health care, education and retraining, etc. We simply cannot afford the system as is.

We can also avoid the embarrassing and diplomatically insulting option of visa restrictions. Ottawa should listen to Budapest. We are the cause of our own problem not them.